The Salt Lake Tribune today carried a story on the voluntary
federal grazing permit buyout bill soon to be introduced by Rep. Chris Shays
(R-CT) and Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ). This legislation is the centerpiece
of the National Public Lands Grazing Campaign's effort to provide, simultaneously
and fairly, a solution to the largest conservation issue in the West and a practical,
generous alternative for cash-strapped public lands ranchers with investments
stranded in grazing permits.

The story is copied below for your information.

The story contains several key points about the NPLGC's voluntary grazing permit
buyout idea. The most important point is the indication by ranchers that a majority
of federal grazing permittees/lessees favor voluntary grazing permit buyout,
while the industry charged with representing them still opposes this free-market
solution.

Salt Lake Tribune

Land for peace: An end of 'grazing war'?

by Brent Israelsen

WEST FORK MADISON RIVER, Mont.--In the Standard Creek drainage of this world-class
fishery, two watering troughs are fed by a pipe connected to a spring a few
yards away.

The spring is surrounded by a fenced "exclosure" that keeps cows
away.

Inside the fence, grasses and other plants grow lush and tall. On the outside,
the grass is stubble, the ground mostly barren. "This is state-of-the-art
Forest Service grazing management," George Wuerthner, editor of the book
Welfare Ranching, says mockingly.

Wuerthner is an ecologist for the National Public Lands Grazing Campaign, a
new Oregon-based group seeking to remove cattle and sheep from 257 million
acres of rangelands administered by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management (BLM).

But unlike previous environmental efforts to crack down on grazing, this one
is based on the carrot rather than the stick, says Andy Kerr, the campaign's
director.

Under the proposal, the federal government would offer ranchers top dollar
to give up their grazing privileges.

Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., is expected soon to file a bill called the
"Voluntary Grazing Permit Buyout Act of 2003." The legislation calls
for the federal government to offer ranchers $175 per "animal-unit month"
(AUM), a grazing permit measurement that equals the amount of forage needed
for one cow and her calf for one month.

Once bought out by the government, the AUMs would be permanently retired, meaning
cattle and sheep could never roam that grazing allotment again.

So far, the campaign has been endorsed by the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological
Diversity, the Western Watersheds Project and Forest Guardians.

Instead of producing a tiny portion of the nation's meat and wool, the public
lands would be used for augmenting and recovering wildlife species, improving
watersheds and providing additional recreational opportunities for the West's
growing population, the proponents say.

The buyout idea is largely the brainchild of Kerr, who gained national prominence
last decade during the spotted owl vs. timber industry battles in the Pacific
Northwest.

Part provocateur and part policy wonk, 49-year-old Kerr says he realized a
few years ago that environmental groups would eventually win their war against
grazing. But it would be a war of attrition, in which ranchers would continue
to be beaten down by restrictions, lawsuits and depressed beef prices until
they were forced into bankruptcy or another line of work.

There had to be a faster, more humane way to get ranchers and livestock off
the public lands, Kerr said.

The idea of a nationwide buyout was the most obvious alternative. But to be
successful, Kerr reasoned, it had to offer an attractive rate, one that would
allow ranchers to "recapitalize" their livelihood.

The proposed $175 per AUM figure amounts to a significant premium over current
market rates, which range from $40 to $130 in Utah, according to Craig Warren,
the Logan-based appraiser for Western Agcredit, an agricultural lender.

Paying $175 per AUM would be akin to the "golden parachute" severance
packages in the corporate world.

"We're offering [ranchers] a 'golden saddle,' " quips Kerr.

Across the West, 25,000 ranchers hold about 18 million AUMs. If they all took
advantage of the buyout, it would cost the U.S. Treasury about $3.2 billion.
In Utah, ranchers hold about 1.9 million AUMs, worth about $333 million under
the buyout plan.

Kerr argues the buyout would eventually pay for itself.

Currently, the federal grazing program loses $124 million a year.

If other costs are factored in--soil loss, predator control, water degradation,
endangered species, the dewatering of streams and the spread of weeds--livestock
production on public lands costs taxpayers at least $500 million a year, according
to a study commissioned by the Tucson, Ariz.-based Center for Biological Diversity
and conducted by economists from the University of Kentucky and the BLM.

While ranchers such as Arizona's Herb Bundy almost universally dismiss such
statistics as "hogwash," many others have expressed an interest in
Kerr's plan, which the campaign announced in April 2002 in a letter to all public-lands
grazing permit holders. The campaign plans to send a follow-up letter after
Shays' bill is introduced.

In Arizona, where persistent drought has sent many livestock operations over
the financial brink, most ranchers appear to support the federal buyout proposal,
says Mark Salvo, who runs the campaign's office in Phoenix.

In an informal survey of grazing permit holders in Arizona--conducted by the
Whitney family's Circle Bar Ranch in Fountain Hills, Ariz.--152 of 228 respondents
said they favored the buyout plan. The state's largest newspaper, The Arizona
Republic, has thrown its editorial support behind the proposal. Rep. Raul Grijalva,
D-Ariz., is drafting legislation similar to Shays' that would apply only to
ranchers on public lands in Arizona.

Bundy, who runs cattle on the Arizona Strip south of the Utah border, says
he opposes any buyout proposal, mainly because of its potential detriment to
rural communities.

"But I have a brother [Ethan Bundy] who has a permit inside the Grand
Canyon-Parashant National Monument and he doesn't think it's such a bad idea."

Some Utah ranchers also are chomping at the bit.

"I've talked to several guys on this, and I'd say about 60 percent are
in favor of it," says Ferron rancher Kash Winn, who runs cattle on BLM
land in the San Rafael Swell and on Forest Service land on the Wasatch Plateau.

Ranching associations, however, are a different story. The Arizona Cattle Growers
Association is against the proposal. Representatives of the Utah Farm Bureau
and the Utah Cattlemen's Association say their groups probably would oppose
the idea too, although no formal vote has been taken.

Both Utah groups have taken positions in the past generally opposing retirement
of grazing permits. Ranching advocates' principal argument is that retiring
public-land grazing permits will harm rural economies.

Kerr acknowledges some communities would be hurt, but he argues they would
fare better under a buyout now than if the ranchers simply went out of business
a decade or two from now.

Winn seems to agree more with Kerr.

"It would hurt some rural communities, no doubt, because ranchers would
leave for other places. But I don't think it will have any major effects [on
rural Utah]. I don't think personally it will have as much impact as people
think."

If Winn were to sell the 2,100 AUMs he holds, he would receive $367,500 under
the Voluntary Grazing Permit Buyout Act.

"That would get me out of debt," says Winn. "I've already purchased
some private property, and that's the direction I'm heading."

Winn calls the proposed grazing buyout plan a win-win situation because many
public-land ranchers need a way out from under debt and the increasingly costly
burden of environmental restrictions, which are not likely to ease.

"It would be the cheapest end to a lot of problems, in a lot of cases.
But it's got to be totally voluntary," Winn says.

One potential benefit to society may be an increase in wildlife, both for the
hunting and nonhunting public to enjoy. Wyoming state biologists have estimated
that one cow eats enough forage to support 6.9 bighorn sheep, 10.8 antelope,
7.8 deer or 2.1 elk.

Barry Reiswing, manager of the National Elk Refuge adjacent to Grand Teton
National Park, also favors the proposal, saying it will solve many problems
in wildlife sensitive areas.

Although this is the first time anyone has proposed the federal government
be the financier, buyouts are not a new concept.

In recent years, environmental groups have become increasingly active in raising
money to purchase grazing permits, which then have been "retired"
by the BLM or Forest Service.

The largest of those occurred in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
in southern Utah, where the Grand Canyon Trust spent $600,000 to end or drastically
reduce grazing on 350,000 acres.

And last month, a consortium of conservation groups spent $250,000 to buy out
an 87,000-acre Forest Service grazing allotment bordering Grand Teton, where
livestock conflicts with bears, wolves and other wildlife are legion.

There is one major risk, however, to those types of buyouts: Current federal
statutes do not guarantee that retirements will be permanent.

The Grand Canyon Trust recently encountered resistance from the Bush administration
over grazing retirements. The trust, which had initially balked at supporting
Kerr's proposal, is reconsidering its position, says Bill Hedden, the group's
Moab representative who negotiated the Grand Staircase-Escalante deal.

"We now believe that something along the lines of the National Public
Lands Grazing Campaign may be the answer."